Trent was an employee of GasCo, a manufacturer of flammable propane gas tanks that were highly explosive. Peter filed an action against Dina based on negligence and asserted that the walkway was defective. Through process of elimina- tion, this has to be a negligence action. D The standards set out in the statute are clearly defined. Nor is the defendant liable for an attempted assault of A. Physical touch that was harmful and offensive 2. Efforts to protect person or property are common dependent intervening forces.
A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. Given that he was also injured by the fumes, his assertion that he was not aware of the danger was very believable. C is wrong because, in contrast to negligent infliction of distress, intentional infliction of distress does not require proof of physical harm to recover. Neighbor was aware of the defect but did not warn William. Two weeks later, the teacher molested the boy again, and the teacher was arrested and charged with both incidents.
For design defect cases, the plaintiff usually must show a reasonable alternative design, i. The facts do not indicate whether the tenant knew of the split board and neglected to alert the friend or simply was not aware of it, but the duty to warn does not extend to dangerous conditions that the licensee should reasonably have discov- ered. There is no evidence that intentional tortious conduct is part of this employment relationship. The Court used actual malice to describe the defendant's necessary state of mind as to the statement's truth or falsity, not its defamatory nature. D The product does not comply with government safety standards. Also, negligence of rescuers is a common dependent intervening force. Therefore, B and D are incorrect.
B is incorrect because the cruise ship owner does not need that evidence to prevail. The propane gas tanks caused the five-car accident by being on the highway. A Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor. Here, while the columnist had no evidence of the mayor's involvement with the action of the health inspectors, he believed that there was a connection based on his belief as to how the city operates. An abnormally dangerous activity is on that 1 creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised. D is wrong because the fact that the new boss did not believe the statement does not prove lack of basis for the girlfriend to have made it.
Application of the doctrine does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant, nor does it create a presumption of negligence. If a defendant's negligence causes an aggravation of a plaintiff's existing physical illness, the defendant is liable for the damages caused by the aggravation. The means by which the defendant interferes with the plaintiff's possession need not be different for the two torts; it may be the consequences of the interference that make the difference. Here, the cabbie would not be liable for the injury to the right ankle, because the cabbie did not cause the injury. D is wrong because the fact that the barking constituted a nuisance would not be a defense to conduct amounting to intentional infliction of distress; abatement of a private nuisance by self-help must be preceded by notice to the other party and must be conducted in a reasonable manner. For example, a short joyride may amount to only trespass to chattels, but if the defendant accidentally totals the car while doing so, he will be liable for conversion. A Intentional infliction of emotional distress B Assault C Battery D No recovery Torts multiple choice Question 2 is based on the following fact situation.
The plaintiff must establish that she suffered damage as a result of the defendant's conduct. He saw a highway below him as he fell to earth. As a general rule, damages are not reduced or mitigated by reason of benefits received by the plaintiff from other sources, such as health insurance. Need not be aware of contact. However, if the intermediary's conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, then it does become a superseding cause.
A The friend will win, because the line failed to support a weight of less than 10 pounds. At a little league game, a seven-year-old boy was called out on strikes. A Uphold the verdict, because it was a deter- mination that a reasonable person should have known of the danger. However, it does not apply against a tortfeasor who is immune from liability. The patient may recover in battery regardless of whether she was harmed. The defendant must intend to cause the harmful or offensive contact. A licensee is one who enters on land with the landowner's permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business, rather than for the landowner's benefit.
Even if it were to apply to his explanation of why his family's restaurant was shut down, his statements in the column were beyond the scope of the privilege, which does not extend to making a statement to a mass audience whose reading of the statement would not reasonably further his interest in defending himself. D If the student wins, it will be because the neighbor's conduct was extreme and outrageous. Because the plaintiff has offered no other evidence that the defendant was negligent, the defendant's motion should be granted. Following industry standards is not a defense to a nuisance suit. C The patient will recover at least nominal damages on a negligence theory.
Generally rescuers are viewed as foreseeable intervening forces, so the original tortfeasor usually is liable for their negligence. After accounts of a confidential congres- sional hearing on a national security matter were published, the chief counsel at the hearing made a statement to a major newspaper accusing a popular network news anchorman of leaking the story and endangering national security. Prior to driving, the mother had snapped the car carrier onto the base and pulled up on the car carrier's handle to ensure that the carrier was indeed secured in the base. One night, Trent was driving on the highway and a large animal darted in front of his truck. Is it lol that I'm freaking out a little? D is incorrect because, given the patient's physical condition, a failure to make a proper diagnosis did create a foreseeable risk that she would continue to suffer from a painful condition that could otherwise have been alleviated.
However, Manufacturer was compliant with the industry's standards regarding processing chemicals but Neighbor's private water well became contaminated by Manufacturer's activities. It is not true that the defendant may not use force that may injure the entrant. After the first man threw a punch, a fight ensued, and the second man was struck in the back of the head with a heavy object from behind. The advertising featured a picture of the comedian with the manufacturer's cigar in his hand, and the copy quoted his statement from the show. The biological father of the child filed an action against Jen on behalf of the child. D is incorrect because there is neither a reasonable inference of negligence nor evidence of negligence, given that the violation of the statute will be excused here.