QUESTION 1

Assume that a defendant (professor) wants a student to wait in the bathroom for 30 minutes after class. Which is of the following is most likely the intentional tort of "false imprisonment".

	1.	The defendant (a professor) tells the student that because the student is acting up during class the student should leave class and wait in the bathroom until the professor is ready to talk to the student. The student complies and goes into the bathroom. The professor is late leaving the class and goes to talk to the student who when the professor knocks onthe bathroom door, comes out of the bathroom.
	2.	The defendant (the professor) tells the plaintiff (the student) to go in the bathroom and stay there for 30 minutes. The student/ plaintiff does not move and says nothing in response to being told by the professor to go in the bathroom. The defendant professor then grabs the plaintiff by the arm and while holding the plaintiff's/student's arm walks the plaintiff in the bathroom and tells the plaintiff again to "stay in the bathroom for 30 minutes." The bathroom door is not locked. The plaintiff says in the bathroom for 30 minutes as instructed.
	3.	The defendant (a professor) follows the plaintiff ( a student) and sees that plaintiff goes into the bathroom. The defndant/professor stands outside of the bathroom at the door and does not let anyone else enter to bathroom.
	4.	The defendant (a professor) suggests that the plaintiff (a student) go into the bathroom for 30 minutes because the professor makes up a story that the professor/defendant is concerned about the student's safety. The plaintiff agrees and goes into the bathroom for 30 minutes. The bathroom door is no locked.

QUESTION 2

Maeve carelessly spilled a beer on the floor of the Dome during last year's basketball game in which the NBA star known as Giannis Antetokounmpo was a spectator at the Dome watching the game. Giannis walked right in the area of the Dome where Maeve spilled the beer and he slipped on the spilled beer and broke his back. It is undisputed that because of this accident, he woould not play basketball for three years after the accident and his NBA team did not have to pay him his 30 million dollar per year contract price for each of those 3 years he could not play. Giannis sues Maeve for negligence and his damage claim includes a claim for 90 million dollars in lost wages/ damages. The jury finds that both Maeve and Giannis were negligent in causing this accident and that each was 50% at fault/negligent for this accident. Which of the following is TRUE.

	1.	The trial court or appellate court should throw out/ reverse the jury award because Maeve's carelessness was not the actual cause of Giannis' lost wages.
	2.	If calculating Maeve's liability for Giannis' lost wages, she will be liable for 50% of the 90 million dollars that he lost in not being able to play basketball for three years ---which is 45 million dollars.
	3.	The trial/appellate court should throw out/ reverse the jury award for these lost wages because to make Maeve liable for damages to compensate Giannis are to make her liabie for punitive damages ---and Maeve 's carelessnes should not make her liable for punitive damages.
	4.	The trial court or appellate court should throw out/ reverse the jury award because Maeve's carelessness was not the proximate cause of Giannis' injury and damage because the injury to Giannis was not the natural and probable consequence of Maeve's act of carelessly spilling the beer.

QUESTION 3

As to the difference between the theories / claims of "Strict Liability" and "Negligence"--which is TRUE:

	1.	For a defendant to have "strict liability" the defendant must have violated a statute and for a defendant to be negligent the defendant can be negligent if it violates a statute or violates a duty to exercise reasonable care.
	2.	For a defendant to have "strict liability", the plaintiff must prove "substantial" damage and negligence requires only the proof of damage.
	3.	For a defendant to have "strict liability" the plaintiff need not prove a defendant breached a duty and for a defendant to be "negligent" requires proof that the defendant breached a duty.
	4.	For a defendant to have "strict liability" the plaintiff must prove that the defendant assumed the risk and for a defendant to be "negligent" does not require proof that the defendant assumed the risk.

QUESTION 4

A federal judge at the federal court house in Syracuse recently ruled that a gun control law adopted by the New York State legislature and signed into law by the governor of New York State violated the federal law known as the United States Constitution---right to bear arms. Which of the following is TRUE.

	1.	The federal court does not have the power to review a state law and whether this law violated the US Constitution must be decided by a New York State court.
	2.	New York State has no right or option to appeal this decision because in federal court a State has no right to appeal a federal court judge's decision.
	3.	The federal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case and the lawsuit should have been dismissed.
	4.	The concept of judicial review allows the federal court to review the State of New York's law which was alleged to violate the US Constitution.

QUESTION 5

As to the legal theory of professional negligence in performing a "special duty" (also known as medical malpractice---like when a doctor makes a mistake in providing medical care), which of the following is TRUE as it relates to a surgery by a doctor who tried to save a patient's leg (avoid amputation) :

	1.	If the doctor deviates from good and accepted medical practice of that area of medicine/surgery in the way the doctor performs the surgery (for example carelessly leaves a tourniquet on too long) -and that deviation from good and accepted medical practice is the proximate cause of the patient's leg being amputated --- then the doctor has committed malpractice.
	2.	The doctor's duty in performing the surgery is to act like a reasonable person would act .
	3.	If the doctor tells the patient that the doctor is optimistic that there is a 60% chance that by operating on the injured leg the injured leg can be saved and not amputated---when the operation occurs and the leg is not saved but is amputated, the doctor has committed malpractice by reason of telling the patient they had a 60% chance of saving the leg
	4.	If the doctor deviates from good and accepted medical practice in performing the surgery on the leg, but the patient dies from a heart attack that was not caused by the doctor's failure to follow good and accepted practice in performing the surgery, then the doctor will still be liable for the death of the patient based on the failure to follow good and accepted medical practices