QUESTION 11

Jack saw a pile of lumber on some land about 20 feet off a public road. He drove his truck on the land and loaded the lumber into his truck and drove away. In doing so Jack damaged some of the lumber. Jack did not know who owned the land and Jack believed the lumber had been abandoned and been set out as garbage/debris. Maeve, the owner of the land and the lumber, saw what Jack did and followed him to, a grocery store where Jack parked his truck in the parking lot. When Jack parked his truck and got out--- Maeve went up behind him and before Jack knew Maeve was near or behind him, she tasered him causing him to lose consciousness and fall to the ground. She took the lumber from the back of Jack's truck and put it in her truck and left Jack unconscious on the ground. Jack was unconscious for about an hour. Which of the following is TRUE.

	1.	Jack committed the intentional torts of trespass and conversion and Maeve committed the intentional tort of battery.
	2.	Jack committed the intentional torts of trespass and conversion and Maeve committed the intentional torts of battery and trespass.
	3.	Jack committed no intentional tort and Maeve committed the intentional tort of battery.
	4.	Jack committed the intentional tort of conversion and Maeve committed the intentional tort of assault.

QUESTION 12

As to the concept/theory of "Respondeat Superior"---which of the following is TRUE:

	1.	It makes an employer liable for the negligence of its employee when the employee negligently injuries or damages someone (i.e., a third party) within and during the scope of the employee's employment/job (i.e., while the employee is working).
	2.	It makes the employee liable for the employer's negligence that causes injury or damage to someone (i.e., a third party).
	3.	It makes an employer liable for all acts or omissions of the employee that injures or damages someone when said acts or omissions are comitted while the employee is working OR while the employee is off work and not working (the weekend or vacation).
	4.	It makes an employee liable for their negligence in injuring someone (i.e., a third party).

QUESTION 13

Best Buy bought 1,000 electric stoves from XYC Corporation, a high quality manufacturer of stoves, which manufactured these stoves. Best Buy bought these stoves for the sole purpose of reselling them to consumers over the internet. The stoves were each in their box and shipped to a Best Buy warehouse where they were stored in the original box. Best Buy employees never inspected the stoves and it is industry practice for retailers like Best Buy to NOT open boxes and inspect stoves for defects or quality. No government regulation required Best Buy to inspect or test the stoves. Best Buy sold all the stoves to consumers. Turns out that the stoves were defective and not reasonablly safe when they were manufactured and sold because of a defect in XYC's manufacturing process that caused that defect. The defective stoves caused about 30 separate fires at the houses of the people who bought the stoves. Best Buy had no knowledge of that defect when it sold those stoves.or before any of the fires. Turns out that XYC Corp is now bankrupt so the only entity with assets/money for these damaged homeowners to sue is Best Buy. Which of the following is TRUE in any lawsuit against Best Buy:

	1.	Best Buy is likely strictly liable to the homeowners for the damages under a theory of "strict product liablity" for selling these stoves as a retailer in the business of selling these stoves.
	2.	Best Buy is likely only liable to these homeowners for their damage based on a negligence theory and a strict product liability theory.
	3.	Best Buy is likely not liable to these homeowners under the theory of liability of negligence or of strict products liability.
	4.	Best Buy is likely strictly liable to the homeowners under a theory of strict product liability and is also liable under a theory of assumption of risk---for selling these stoves.

QUESTION 14

Ted, a student at SU living off campus, has 8 parties at his house where he charges $20 per person for beer that contains alcohol. He allows students under 21 years old to pay the $20 and drink the beer. The parties occur over 4 consecutive weekends each Friday and Saturday night. There was a house next door, close by to the house rented by Ted. Bella owned and lived in that house. These parties were loud, lasted until 4 am, resulted in litter in her yard, resulted in student attendees (not Ted) trespassing on her property; prevented her from getting a good nights sleep which caused her to have severe headaches. After the 8th party, she went over to Ted's and asked him to stop having the parties. Ted told her to mind her own business, and in the presence of several people---Ted said :" Bella, in my opinon you have an old person's mentality". Bella, who was only 24 years old, viewed this as slander. Which is TRUE as to any lawsuit by Bella against Ted.

	1.	Bella will likely be able to prove that Ted committed the intentional torts of nuisance, conversion and slander..
	2.	Bella will not likely be able to prove that what Ted has done rises to the level of a nuisance.
	3.	Bella will likely be able to prove a nuisance created by Ted but she will need to prove that with evidence that shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Ted has created a nuisance.
	4.	Bella will likely be able to prove that Ted has committed the intentional tort of "nuisance" and that she will get legal relief ($ i.e. money damages) and equitable relief ( an injunction/ court order that at least prevents Ted in the future from having parties every weekend and prevents /orders him not to sell alcohol to minors ).

The legal theory that makes a defendant liable where: 1) the plaintiff is in no way responsible in whole or in part for negligently causing their own injury; 2) the defendant is in exclusive control of the instrument or activity that caused the plaintiff's injury and 3) this type of accident does not typically occur in the absence of the defendant being negligent---is known as WHAT:

	1.	Stare Decisis
	2.	Res Judicata
	3.	Respondeat Superior
	4.	Res Ipsa Loquitor

QUESTION 16

Which of the following is TRUE as to a person named McKenna potentially serving as a juror on a trial involving a negligence action involving two cars where the issue is which car/driver had the red light.

	1.	The fact that McKenna is a catholic and the defendant is a catholic is not grounds to dismiss McKenna from the jury "for cause."
	2.	The fact that Mckenna has no drivers licence means that she will be dismissed from being a juror "for cause".
	3.	The plaintiff can NOT use a peremptory challenge to dismiss McKenna from the jury based on the plaintiff's belief that McKenna's failure to make eye contact with the plaintiff means that McKenna will not be a good juror.
	4.	McKenna had, in the previous two years , been ticketed for not stoping at a red light and this will result in her being dismissed from the jury "for cause".