QUESTION 17

Which of the following statements is FALSE:

	1.	If the lawsuit involves a slip and fall accident on spilled water that injured the plaintiff and required plaintiff's hospitalization---it is always relevant for the plaintiff in discovery to be able to get the defendant's medical records AND for the defendant to get the plaintiff's medical/hospital records.
	2.	If you sue your landlord for failing to return you security deposit and your landlord defends the lawsuit by claiming they paid you your secuity deposit with a check that you cashed ---it is relevant for you demand in discovery that your landord produce a copy of the cancelled check.
	3.	If you sue the defendant claiming she drove through a red light and collided with you, and if you claim you saw, right before the accident, the defendant talking or texting on her cell phone which was in her hand---and if the defendant claims she was not using the cell phone at the time of the accident----it is relevant for you to demand in discovery that the defendant produce her cell phone record showing call and text details at and around the time of the accident to try to prove she was on or using the cell phone.
	4.	If you sue a defendant for driving through a red light and you learn that the defendant had a dash board camera that recorded the accident --it is relevant in discovery for you to demand and to obtain a copy of the recording of his car entering the intersection even if the defendant claims that the recording does not show the traffic light.

QUESTION 18

Jack, a student at SU, is in the dining hall and goes up to Jose a fellow student. Jack tells Jose that he is going to hurt him for spreading false rumors about him Jose sees Jack close his fist and start to swing at him. As Jack closed his fist and took a swing at Jose, Jose ducks and avoids getting hit. Although Jack's fist missed hitting Jose, Jack lost his balance and fell into a table where Alex was sitting. Jack's body make contact with Alex's body and this contact caused Alex to fall off his chair and get a concusion when his head hit the floor. Jack did not intend to strike or make any physical contact with Alex. Alex never saw that punch being thrown. Jose was so shaken up and emotionally traumatized from almost being hit by Jack that he ran into the bathroom and threw up. Which claims should Jack expect to be sued by Jose and Alex?

	1.	Jose had no valid claim against Jack. Alex will sue Jack for battery.
	2.	Jose will sue Jack for slander and assault. Alex will sue Jack for battery.
	3.	Jose will sue Jack for assault. Alex will sue Jack for negligence.
	4.	Jose will sue Jack for assault. Alex will sue Jack for assault and battery.

QUESTION 19

Terry is driving his car into an intersection and he has the green light. He was going the speed limit and doing everything that good drivers do (such not using his cell phone, seeing what was there to be seen as drove his car). Terry saw a child on a bike very suddenly start to drive in his lane so Terry sounded his horn to warn the child not to enter his lane. The child and witnesses would later admit that had Terry not sounded his horn, the child would not have seen him and would have likely been hit by Terry or some other driver. However, when Terry sounded his horn, the noise of the horn distracted and startled Carla, an adult, who was on her bike. It is undisputed that the noise from the horn caused Carla to become distracted and startled and this caused her to lose control of her bike and strike and injure a pedestrian. The pedestrian proceeded to start a lawsuit against Carla and Terry alleging that each was negligent in causing her accident.. What is Terry's BEST argument that he is NOT negligent in causing the pedestrian's accident/ injury.

	1.	Terry breach no duty in causing or contributing to causing this accident to the pedestrian.
	2.	Terry's sounding of the horn was not ultra hazardous activity.
	3.	Terry has no liability because the pedestrian "assumed the risk" of an injury.
	4.	Terry's sounding of the horn was not an actual cause of the injury to the pedestrian.

QUESTION 20

Jack (whose company sells in ground swimming pools) is aware that Maeve has a valid contract (non compete agreement) with Company X. The "non compete contract" does not prevent Maeve from quitting her job at Company X but only prevents her from competing against Company X for 2 years in the state where Company X does business. Maeve sells cars for Comany X, which is a car dealership. Jack knows that Maeve is an excellent sales person and so he encourages Maeve to quit her job with Company X and come work for him selling in ground pools. Jack does two things to "encourage" Maeve to come work for him: 1) he offers to pay Maeve more money and 2) he tells Maeve that he believes his company is a better place for her to work and he believes that she has a better chance at making more money if she comes to work for him than if she stays and works for Company X. Maeve quits her job at Company X and goes to work for Jack. Turns out that for the first year after she went to work for Jack selling in ground swimming pools, Maeve made 20% less money working for Jack than she would have made if she worked for Company X. Which of the following is TRUE.

	1.	Jack committed the intentional tort of interference with contract relations as to Company X.
	2.	Jack committed the intentional tort of disparagement as against Company X.
	3.	Jack committed the intentional tort of interference with prospective advantage as against Company X.
	4.	Jack did not commit any intentional tort in what he said and did