Scenario: Tom, who had one glass eye and walked with a cane, was waiting at the corner at a bus stop. Billy, a known troublemaker, walked up behind Tom and, thinking Tom wouldn't see him because he only had one good eye, kicked the base of Tom's cane. Although the bottom of the cane came off the ground, Tom had not been leaning on the cane heavily. He lost his balance, but did not fall and was not injured. Tom didn't see Billy kick his cane, but when he turned around he saw Billy laughing. Tom got mad and whacked Billy over the head with the cane. If Tom sues Billy for battery, who will prevail? Question 1 options: a) Tom will prevail because losing his balance is a harmful contact. b) Tom will prevail because the contact with his cane, while he was holding it, is the equivalent of an offensive contact with his person. c) Billy will prevail because he intended only to play a joke, not to cause physical harm. d) Billy will prevail because Tom suffered no physical harm. Question 2(5 points) Scenario: Tom, who had one glass eye and walked with a cane, was waiting at the corner at a bus stop. Billy, a known troublemaker, walked up behind Tom and, thinking Tom wouldn't see him because he only had one good eye, kicked the base of Tom's cane. Although the bottom of the cane came off the ground, Tom had not been leaning on the cane heavily. He lost his balance, but did not fall and was not injured. Tom didn't see Billy kick his cane, but when he turned around he saw Billy laughing. Tom got mad and whacked Billy over the head with the cane. If Tom sues Billy for assault, who will prevail? Question 2 options: a) Tom will prevail because the intent sufficient for battery will also support a claim of assault. b) Tom will prevail because every battery includes an assault. c) Billy will prevail because he intended only contact with the cane, and not to cause apprehension. d) Billy will prevail because Tom never saw the contact coming and therefore experienced no apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Question 3(5 points) Scenario: Tom, who had one glass eye and walked with a cane, was waiting at the corner at a bus stop. Billy, a known troublemaker, walked up behind Tom and, thinking Tom wouldn't see him because he only had one good eye, kicked the base of Tom's cane. Although the bottom of the cane came off the ground, Tom had not been leaning on the cane heavily. He lost his balance, but did not fall and was not injured. Tom didn't see Billy kick his cane, but when he turned around he saw Billy laughing. Tom got mad and whacked Billy over the head with the cane. If Billy sues Tom for battery, who will prevail? Question 3 options: a) Tom will prevail because Billy made the initial contact. b) Tom will prevail because he was justified to be angry. c) Billy will prevail because he actually suffered an intended harmful contact. d) Billy will prevail because Tom used a weapon. Question 4(5 points) A landowner decided to do some target practice on her rural land. She went to an open field and began firing at a large, dead tree about 400 yards away. The landowner was aware that the tree was near her property line and that hikers used a trail in the state forest on the other side of the line. One of her shots missed the dead tree and carried onto public property, where it wounded a hiker whom the landowner had not seen. If the hiker sues the landowner for battery, who will prevail? Question 4 options: a) The hiker will prevail, because the landowner knew that members of the public visited the state forest on the other side of the property line. b) The hiker will prevail, because harmful contact in fact resulted. c) The landowner will prevail because she did not have the intent necessary for liability for battery. d) The landowner will prevail because she was on her own property when she fired. Question 5(5 points) A 19-year-old gang member was scrawling gang slogans on the fence surrounding a homeowner's yard when the homeowner appeared and said, "Hey! Stop that you're ruining my fence!" The gang member finished what he was writing and began to walk away. When the homeowner muttered to himself, "Now I'm going to have to repaint the whole fence," the gang member stopped, turned, and said, "Repaint my work and you're going to have a fire at your house while you're home." The homeowner brought an action against the gang member for assault. What result is likely? Question 5 options: a) Judgment for the gang member, because he did not threaten any immediate physical harm. b) Judgment for the gang member, because any threat he made was conditional and thus avoidable. c) Judgment for the homeowner, if the gang member intended that the homeowner would experience apprehension of a harmful physical contact. d) Judgment for the homeowner, if the gang member's threat is considered extreme and outrageous conduct. Question 6(5 points) Unaware that a lawyer was in the courthouse library on a late Friday afternoon, when it was unusual for anyone to be in the building, the county clerk locked the library door and left. The lawyer found herself locked in the library when she tried to leave at 7:00 pm. It was midnight before the lawyer's family could find out where she was and get her out. The lawyer was very upset by the ordeal but was otherwise unharmed. Does the lawyer have a viable claim for false imprisonment against the county clerk? Question 6 options: a) No, because it was unusual for anyone to be using the library late on a Friday afternoon. b) No, because the clerk did not intend to confine the lawyer. c) Yes, because the clerk could have checked to make sure no one was in the library before she locked the door. d) Yes, because the lawyer was aware of being confined. Question 7(5 points) A mother and her six-year-old child were on a walk when the mother stopped to talk with an elderly neighbor. Because the child resented having his mother's attention taken away by the neighbor, the child kicked the neighbor's leg, which resulted in the neighbor falling to the ground and breaking her wrist as a result of the fall. In an action for battery by the neighbor against the child, what is the strongest argument for liability? Question 7 options: a) The child intended to kick the neighbor. b) The child was old enough to appreciate that kicking someone could inflict serious bodily injury. c) The child was old enough to appreciate how frail the elderly are. d) The child was not justified in his anger. Question 8(5 points) Lisa was searching for a parking place in a crowded mall parking lot on a holiday weekend. Seeing another motorist backing out of a spot two rows over, Lisa sped up, drove the wrong way down that row of parking spaces, and backed up into the now empty spot. In doing so she cut off Dani, who had been approaching the space from the proper direction. Dani, angered, shook her fist at Lisa and shouted obscenities at Lisa. Dani then got out of her car, approached Lisa's car, and continued to shout at her through the closed windows of Lisa's car. Lisa was upset by Dani's actions, but not frightened; she told Dani to get lost or she will call the police. Dani returned to her car and drove off. If Lisa sues Dani for assault, who will prevail? Question 8 options: a) Lisa will prevail because Dani's gesture was a threat of harmful contact. b) Lisa will prevail because it was reasonable to feel threatened by Dani's conduct. c) Dani will prevail because Lisa's window was closed and she did not have the present ability to inflict a harmful contact. d) Dani will prevail because Lisa did not feel threatened by Dani's actions. Question 9(5 points) Samantha was browsing in "Brooch," a high end jewelry shop. She had horrible allergies and continuously reached in her handbag for tissues to blow her nose. The manager notified security of her actions because he suspected her of shoplifting. The security officer stopped her, asked her to follow him to the backroom, and demanded that she open her purse. Samantha complied but was very upset. Upon searching her purse, all that was found were tissues and allergy medicine. Samantha was allowed to leave the store shortly after. Does she have a claim for false imprisonment? Question 9 options: a) She does not have a claim because the manager's suspicion was reasonable. b) She does not have a claim because she was confined for too short a time. c) She has a claim because the confinement was wrongful; she was not a shoplifter. d) She has a claim, because the security guard did not actually witness her putting something in her purse. Question 10(5 points) Mary is sitting at a coffee shop when her friend Sam sees her and decides to play a practical joke on her as part of their ongoing prank war. He texts her: "Turn around, someone is about to kill you." She turns around to find Sam standing behind her. She brings a claim against Sam for assault. Which of the following responses will be most effective for Sam to use against this claim? Question 10 options: a) Sending a threatening text will not constitute assault, since it does not meet the imminence requirement. b) Sam never actually intended to touch Mary, so this does not constitute assault. c) Mary and Sam are friends involved in regular pranks, so Mary may not have actually believed the threat, or if she did, it may not have been reasonable for her to do so. d) Sam did not intend to frighten Mary, so this does not constitute assault. Question 11(5 points) A young baseball fan received a new baseball bat and ball for his eighth birthday as a gift from his friend. The young fan had told his friend earlier that week that he really wanted a traditional wooden bat like the one the friend had. However, the friend bought the young fan a metal bat instead of a wooden one. Angry that he did not receive the bat he wanted, the young fan picked up the baseball and hit it toward his friend, who had turned his back to get a piece of birthday cake. The baseball flew over the friend's head, knocking off his birthday hat. The friend lost his balance, fell to the ground and scraped his chin. In a battery action against the young fan, what is the most likely result? Question 11 options: a) The friend will prevail, because he was physically injured. b) The friend will prevail, because the young fan had the requisite intent for battery, and an offensive contact resulted. c) The friend will not prevail, because the young fan, as a minor, lacks the ability to form the intent required for battery. d) The friend will not prevail, because the baseball struck his hat instead of his person. Question 12(5 points) A homeowner was expecting a visit from a friend. Since the homeowner and his friend frequently played jokes on each other, the homeowner wired his front doorbell so that when it was pushed it would administer a mild shock. Before the friend arrived, a Girl Scout selling cookies approached the door and pushed the doorbell. She received the mild shock, causing her to fall to the ground but suffering no injuries. If the Girl Scout sues the homeowner for battery, will she prevail? Question 12 options: a) Yes, because the Girl Scout fell to the ground. b) Yes, because the homeowner's intent to shock the friend transfers to the Girl Scout. c) No, because the Girl Scout did not suffer an injury as a result of the shock. d) No, because an electric shock is not a sufficient touching for battery. Question 13(5 points) A winemaker went to a New Year's Eve party at the home of his friend, an electrician. He had already drunk quite a bit of his own wine when he arrived, and soon demanded vodka from the host. After the winemaker started trying to peer down women's blouses and roughly insisted on kissing the electrician's sister under the mistletoe, several more sober guests cornered him and locked him in a bedroom to calm him down at the electrician's direction. When the winemaker stopped beating on the door a half hour later, they let him out. He was still quite drunk. A friend of the winemaker took him outside, walked him to the bus stop, and told him to go home. The winemaker came back to the electrician's house and tried to re-enter the house seeking to exact revenge for the embarrassment of being locked in the bedroom. When he was not allowed to re-enter, he tried to climb up to the balcony. He slipped on some ice on the way up and broke his ankle. What would be the winemaker's best claim for relief against the electrician? Question 13 options: a) Negligence, for the icy condition of the balcony railings. b) False imprisonment, for having him locked in the bedroom. c) Strict liability, because the winemaker was invited and then refused re-entry. d) The electrician caused the winemaker severe emotional distress. Question 14(5 points) A teenage girl and her boyfriend have been dating for several years. The girl's father objects to the relationship and tells several of his friends and acquaintances that if the boyfriend doesn't leave his daughter alone, the father will "tear the boyfriend limb from limb." The father never threatens the boyfriend to his face. The father is a retired professional wrestler who was forced into retirement for using excessive force in the ring. The boyfriend sues the father for assault. Should the boyfriend prevail in his assault case? Question 14 options: a) Yes, because the father has the apparent ability to carry out his threat. b) Yes, because the father has made the threat in the presence of multiple individuals. c) No, if the boyfriend has incurred no damages as a result of the alleged assault. d) No, because a threat of future violence does not constitute an assault. Question 15(5 points) A husband and wife were walking down a country road when they were frightened by a steer running loose on the road. To avoid the steer, they climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, which was owned by a farmer. After climbing over the fence, the husband and wife damaged some of the farmer's crops that were growing near the fence, on which was posted a large "No Trespassing" sign. The farmer was walking with his large watchdog when he saw the husband and wife. The farmer approached them, hoping to frighten them with the fierce-looking dog, but the leash broke and the dog bit the wife. If the wife files a battery claim against the farmer, will she prevail? Question 15 options: a) No, because the wife made an unauthorized entry onto the farmer's land. b) No, because the farmer did not intend to cause any harmful contact with the wife. c) Yes, because the farmer intended for the dog to frighten the wife. d) Yes, because the breaking of the leash establishes liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Question 16(5 points) A mother took her children to school and walked the youngest to her first-grade classroom. She stayed and observed the class for an hour, as parents did almost every day. The roadway and sidewalk by the school entrance were very icy, and there had been an automobile accident shortly before school opened. Concerned for the safety of the children and employees, the principal decided to lock the front door so that no one would walk out to the road by the entrance. There were several exits in the rear of the building, which opened onto the fenced-in schoolyard. These exits were in the coat rooms attached to each classroom and were not visible from the lobby or the classrooms themselves. All the children, teachers, and staff knew where these exits were. When the mother was ready to leave the school, she tried to exit by the front door, the only entry she had ever used. When she found it locked, she tried unsuccessfully to locate someone to open it. Meanwhile, the principal and staff were all in the basement searching for rock salt they had not used since last year to de-ice the entryway steps. After the mother had waited 15 minutes by the door, the school secretary came upstairs, saw her, and let her out. On the advice of her husband, a former law student, the mother sues the school for false imprisonment. Will the mother prevail? Question 16 options: a) No, because the principal acted with reasonable care to protect the safety of everyone on the school premises. b) No, because only one door was locked and there were several other exits. c) Yes, because the principal knew that there would almost certainly be parents in the building. d) Yes, because her inability to find help to unlock the door caused her severe mental distress. Question 17(5 points) A carpenter was recently transferred from his job in the city to his company's woodshop in the suburbs. He did not have the opportunity to visit the suburbs prior to moving there, so he bought a new home through a realtor without seeing the site. When the carpenter finally arrived at his new home, he was shocked to find that it was next door to a home designed to rehabilitate abandoned pot-belly pigs. The carpenter checked all local zoning laws, but found that there was no basis for challenging housing pot-belly pigs in a residential home. Instead, the carpenter constructed a large sign in his front yard that read, "No Pig Loving People Allowed" in large letters. The pig-loving homeowner saw the sign and became very upset and intimidated. As a result of the sign, the homeowner closed all of the window drapes and was unable to leave the house for several weeks. If the homeowner sues the carpenter for false imprisonment, what is the likely outcome? Question 17 options: a) The homeowner will not prevail, because the carpenter did not intend that the homeowner be confined to the house. b) The homeowner will not prevail, because he was not physically restrained from leaving his home. c) The homeowner will prevail, because the carpenter knew that a pot belly rescuer lived in the house. d) The homeowner will prevail, because the sign in the carpenter's front yard could be interpreted as a threat. Question 18(5 points) A real estate agent was having an affair with his neighbor's wife. The neighbor learned of the affair and decided to confront the real estate agent. The neighbor stormed over to the real estate agent's house carrying a loaded gun. The real estate agent refused to open the door, instead yelling at his neighbor through the closed door. Enraged at the real estate agent's refusal to open the door, the neighbor fired a warning shot through the top of the door. The neighbor did not intend to injure the real estate agent, but simply to scare him. However, the door shattered and several long, wooden shards flew off, becoming lodged in the real estate agent's chest and shoulder. The real estate agent sued the neighbor for battery. Who should prevail? Question 18 options: a) The neighbor, because he did not intend for the shards to strike the real estate agent. b) The neighbor, because he did not intend to injure the real estate agent. c) The real estate agent, because the neighbor failed to act as a reasonably prudent person. d) The real estate agent, because the neighbor intended to shoot the gun. Question 19(5 points) A day trader made several jokes about a lawyer's physical appearance at a bar. In an attempt to put an end to the insults, the lawyer walked over to the day trader, picked up a beer bottle, and stared down the day trader. Unaffected by the lawyer's display, the day trader laughed and sat back down. Is the lawyer liable for assault? Question 19 options: a) Yes, because the lawyer intended to put the day trader in fear of a harmful touching. b) Yes, because the lawyer picked up a beer bottle and approached the day trader. c) No, because the day trader was not in fear of harmful contact. d) No, because the lawyer did not threaten an immediate contact. Question 20(5 points) Two women, twin sisters, just graduated from college. As a graduation gift, their parents purchased a house for them to share in a quiet neighborhood in the suburbs of their hometown. The twins were especially excited to see that the house had a large fenced backyard where they could play with their chocolate Labrador Retriever puppies. One sunny afternoon, while the twins were playing Frisbee with their dogs, one of the women overthrew the Frisbee, causing it to land in the neighbor's yard. The neighbor had just finished grilling gourmet cuts of steak for his family and had placed them on a heavy platter. As the neighbor was carrying the platter toward his house, the Frisbee flew by his head. Startled, he dropped the platter of steaks. The platter shattered and cut deeply into his foot, requiring him to make a trip to the hospital for stitches. The neighbor sued the woman for assault and battery. What is the likely result? Question 20 options: a) The neighbor will lose on both claims. b) The neighbor will prevail on both claims. c) The neighbor will prevail on the assault claim, but not the battery claim. d) The neighbor will prevail on the battery claim, but not the assault claim. Question 21(100 points) Tony, a local artist, is hosting an art sale of his work in his backyard for friends and neighbors. Don notices a piece of artwork that would be perfect in his home. He sets the painting in a corner so that no one else can purchase it and goes to find Tony to settle on a price. While Don is looking for Tony, another attendee notices the painting placed in the corner. He also wants the painting, picks it up, and begins to carry it away to purchase it. Just then, Don sees Bill with the painting and quickly moves toward him. Don explains to Bill that he saw the painting first and intended to buy it. Bill says, "Too bad, I have it now." The two men engage in a heated argument, whereupon Don throws a punch at Bill but misses and instead strikes Vera, another prospective art purchaser, in the head. Vera sustains a laceration, requiring medical attention. Discuss each party's potential claims. Question 21 options: Paragraph Lato (Recommended)