Peter and Dexter were friends who commonly went hiking together in Acadia National Park, in Maine. They especially like to do what they called "bouldering," or jumping from large rock to rock along the trails. On one of their hikes, Peter successfully navigated an especially large expanse between boulders with a heroic leap. Peter went back to the rock he had leapt from, kissed it, and dared Dexter to complete the same feat. Dexter declined, and sat on the ground as an expression of his certitude that he would not risk injury by attempting such a long jump. Peter, though, still excited about his own success, continued to verbally goad Peter for fifteen minutes to attempt the jump. Then, Dexter suddenly jumped to his feet, and with the intent to stop the verbal haranguing by Peter, kicked Peter in his left shin with a steel-toed hiking boot. Dexter kicked Peter with enough force to break Peter's leg. If Peter brings suit against Dexter for battery, what is the most likely result?

Question 9 options:

a)

Dexter is not liable, because he acted in self-defense to stop what he reasonably believed to be harmful harassment from Peter.

b)

Dexter is not liable, because he reasonably believed that he could not successfully complete what he reasonably thought was a dangerous jump.

c)

Dexter is liable, because he should have attempted the jump instead of kicking Peter.

d)

Dexter is liable, because his use of force against Peter was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Question 10(12 points)

Barnaby, an adult, was riding his bicycle on a public sidewalk. Suddenly, the chain on his bicycle became loose, and the chain got tangled in the spokes of his back tire. He tried to maintain control of the bicycle, but the front tire of the bicycle ran over Pedestrian's right foot. Pedestrian had sprained the ligaments in her foot earlier that day, and the force of the bicycle running over her damaged foot caused the ligaments to tear. If Pedestrian had not already been hurt, the damage caused by Barnaby's front bicycle tire would have been minor. In a negligence action, which of the following would be the most probable outcome?

Question 10 options:

a)

Judgment for Barnaby, because his bicycle chain falling off was an unforeseeable superseding cause of Pedestrian's injury.

b)

Judgment for Barnaby, because Pedestrian had already injured her foot earlier in the day, and Barnaby could not reasonably foresee that a bicycle tire riding over Pedestrian's foot would cause such a serious injury.

c)

Judgment for Pedestrian, because she was already hurt earlier in the day.

d)

Judgment for Pedestrian, because Barnaby's actions were the actual and proximate causes of Pedestrian's injuries.

Question 11(12 points)

Randy had broken his leg while skydiving, and had been in a cast for several weeks. When he went to get the cast off, he found that the injured bone needed to be reset. As such, he was on crutches for many more weeks. One day, while at a street corner, Passerby asked for directions. Randy pointed out the directions with one of his crutches. As he was pointing directions, his crutch accidentally hit Barbara, causing personal injuries to Barbara. If Barbara brings suit against Randy in negligence, what is the most likely type of duty that Barbara will successfully attempt to establish that Randy owes to her?

Question 11 options:

a)

That Randy owed her a duty of reasonable care.

b)

That Randy owed her a duty of reasonable care as determined by the care and skill of a like person who had been on crutches for a comparable amount of time.

c)

That Randy owed her a duty to avoid danger.

d)

That Randy owed her a duty to avoid a perilous situation.