Penn was invited to attend a party hosted by Sara. Unknown to Penn, Sara had also invited Dusty. Dusty and Penn were enemies who had vowed to kill each other on sight. Penn arrived at Sara’s party first and was standing in the kitchen when he saw Dusty enter the front door. Penn went out the back door to retrieve his pistol from the car, intending to come back into the party and shoot Dusty. Penn brought the pistol into the house and attempted to move close enough to Dusty to fire a shot at her while Dusty could see who was shooting her. Before Penn could pull the trigger, a police officer who was also attending the party grabbed Penn, quietly disarmed him and removed Penn from the party. An inspection of the pistol at the police station determined that it was not loaded. The following day, Dusty called to thank Sara for inviting her to the party. Dusty then learned for the first time that Penn had attended the party and had been disarmed while trying to get into position to shoot Dusty. Shocked at how close she came to death, Dusty suffered a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital.
If Dusty brings an action for assault against Penn, Dusty will
A recover, because Penn intended to cause Dusty to see Penn shoot Dusty.
B recover, because Penn committed a substantial act with the intent to cause immediate harm.
C not recover, because Penn had failed to use a loaded weapon.
D not recover, because Dusty was not aware of Penn’s conduct at the time of the threat to her life.
A and B owned two adjacent lots. Both parties had begun construction of a house and garage on their lot. Unknown to either party, A’s garage, when completed, would encroach onto B’s land by three feet. After he had finished construction of the house and garage (which did in fact encroach onto B’s land by three feet when completed), A sold the house, garage and lot to Davis. Two weeks later, B discovered that the garage on Davis’ property encroached onto B’s land. B brought a suit for trespass to land against A.
Will B prevail?
A No, A is not the owner of the structure which is encroaching on B’s land.
B No, unless A had knowledge that his garage was encroaching on B’s land during construction
C Yes, regardless of whether A knew or had reason to know of the encroachment.
D Yes, unless Davis was aware of the encroachment at the time of purchase.
Joker was invited to a cocktail party at the home of Host. Joker knew that Host was terribly afraid of mice so Joker brought his pet mouse in his pocket to the party intending to play a joke on Host in the middle of the party by letting the mouse run across the dinner table when everyone was seated. Spoiler, another party guest, found out about Joker’s plan to let the mouse run across the dinner table and immediately informed Host right after Joker sat down at the table. Host was relieved, but had to retire to the bedroom and lie down when Host thought about how close Host had come to having her entire party ruined by Joker.
If Host brings a lawsuit against Joker for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Host will need to prove the following in order to recover damages:
I. Joker intended to physically injure Host.
II. Joker’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
III. Host must have suffered severe mental distress.
IV. Host must have suffered some type of physical injury.
A I and II.
B II and III.
C I and III.
D II and IV.
P owned a twenty-five acre parcel of undeveloped land that was adjacent to a public lake. D lived in a cabin located on property that bordered P’s parcel. For the last two years, D had been walking on a path across P’s land to reach the lake. One day, P came to visit his land and saw D walking across his property on the path. P told D to get off his land and never use the path again. D apologized and truthfully stated that D thought the path was a public right-of-way and promised P that he would never use the path again.
If P brings an action against D for trespass, who will prevail?
A P, and P may recover nominal damages because D intentionally used the path to reach the lake.
B D, but only if D does refrain from using the path in the future as promised.
C D, because P suffered no actual injury as a result of the trespass.
D D, because D thought the pathway was open to the public.
Able and Baker were each driving in their automobiles when Baker and Able collided. Both parties were negligent because at the moment of impact, Able was speeding and Baker failed to signal when making a lane change.
If the jurisdiction in which both parties live and where the accident occurred had adopted the pure form of comparative negligence, how should the court rule when Able sues Baker for injuries sustained in the collision?
Able and Baker were playing football in the street. Able threw a long pass to Baker. Baker ran into an automobile driven by Charlie while attempting to catch the pass and suffered from several broken bones and other internal injuries. Able saw the automobile approaching but threw the long pass anyway, believing that Charlie would see Baker and stop his automobile safely before reaching Baker. Baker brought suit against Able and Charlie to recover for his injuries. At the close of the trial, the jury determined that Baker had suffered $100,000 in damages and that Able was 40% at fault, Baker 10% at fault, and Charlie was 50% at fault for causing the injuries Baker sustained. Assume all parties are solvent and have sufficient assets and insurance to cover any judgment amount awarded. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure form of comparative negligence, abolished both contributory negligence and the doctrine of last clear chance, but retains joint and several liability.
If Baker seeks to recover a portion of the $100,000 judgment from Able, will Baker succeed?
A No, because Baker’s negligence was a substantial factor which led to his injury.
B No, because Charlie’s negligence exceeded Baker’s.
C Yes, because Able’s negligence exceeded Baker’s.
D Yes, because Able’s negligence was a substantial factor which caused Baker’s injuries.
Patient suffers from high blood pressure and needs to have surgery to remove a stomach ulcer. Surgeon ordered the surgery without consulting Patient’s cardiologist, who was treating patient for high blood pressure and a related heart condition. While in surgery to remove the stomach ulcer, Patient suffers a massive heart attack. Patient is kept alive by artificial means, but is considered brain dead with no hope for recovery as a consequence of the heart attack. Pursuant to a living will written by Patient shortly before entering the hospital for surgery, Patient’s family orders the hospital to remove all life sustaining medical equipment, except that necessary to ease pain and suffering.
Patient dies, and a lawsuit is brought by the family of Patient on Patient’s behalf against Surgeon. In this action, the plaintiffs (family of Patient acting on Patient’s behalf) should
A not prevail, absent proof that Patient’s cardiologist would have recommended a different course of treatment and that Surgeon reasonably should have followed the recommendation.
B not prevail, because Patient was removed from life-sustaining equipment at his own request.
C prevail, because Surgeon failed to consult with Patient’s cardiologist.
D prevail, if the heart attack was caused by the surgery conducted by Surgeon.