257. Which of the following is a common problem with employee handbooks:
a. listing specific offenses for which people may be fired can create the impression those are the only offenses
that matter
b. failing to change the handbook to comply with state and federal laws as they change
c. not giving a clear at-will employment statement
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
258. A company that buys patents for the purpose of threatening others with lawsuits for patent infringement is known
as a:
a. patent thief
b. patent controller
c. patent troll
d. patent dragon
e. patent hoarder
259. The provides some immunity for a company against content posted or submitted online by third parties, if a
company is merely acting as a publisher.
a. Communications Privacy Act
b. Communications Legitimacy Act
c. Communications Reality Act
d. Communications Decency Act
e. Communications Honesty Act
260. The provides some immunity for a company against content posted or submitted online by third parties, if a
company is merely acting as a publisher.
a. Communications Privacy Act
b. Communications Legitimacy Act
c. Communications Reality Act
d. Communications Honesty Act
e. none of the other choices are correct
261. Compared to the United State, the European Union has:
a. very strict data privacy rules
b. not very strict data privacy rules
c. no data privacy rules
d. data privacy rules that apply only to employers, but not employees
e. none of the other choices are correct
262. The principal is possibly liable for the torts of the agent if the agent’s tort was:
a. authorized by the principal
b. an unauthorized intentional tort outside the scope of the agent‘s employment
c. an unauthorized intentional tort within the scope of the agent‘s employment
d. authorized by the principal or an unauthorized intentional tort within the scope of the agent‘s employment
e. authorized by the principal or an unauthorized intentional tort within the scope of the agent’s employment or
an unauthorized intentional tort outside the scope of the agent’s employment
263. Under which of the following conditions would a principal or employer be liable for the tort of an agent or
employee:
a. the tort was authorized by the principal
b. the tort occurred within the scope of employment
c. the tort was not authorized by the principal
d. both a and b are correct
e. none of the other choices are correct
264. If an agent or employee commits an unauthorized tort outside the scope of employment:
a. the agent or employee is liable to the third party for damages incurred and the principal or employer is not
b. both the agent or employee and the principal or employer are liable to the third party for damages incurred
c. the principal or employer is liable to the third party for damages incurred and the agent or employee is not
d. no one is liable to the third party
e. none of the other choices are correct
265. Jimmy must be at work no later than 7 AM on the days he works. Because he must hurry to get to work, he runs
over a lady going across the street. She sues Jimmy and his employer for her injuries. She has:
a. no case unless she was in a crosswalk going with the light
b. a case against Jimmy, but no case against his employer
c. a case against Jimmy and against his employer under vicarious liability
d. a case against Jimmy’s employer if Jimmy is found to be negligent, such liability means that Jimmy would not
be personally liable
e. a right to seek worker’s compensation if she was walking to work
266. When liability is imposed on the principal for the unauthorized torts of an agent, it is called:
a. vicarious liability
b. indemnification
c. agent respondeat
d. third-party rights, duties, and liabilities
e. none of the other choices
267. When liability is imposed on the principal for the unauthorized torts of an agent, it is called:
a. fiduciary duty
b. indemnification
c. agent respondeat
d. third-party rights, duties, and liabilities
e. none of the other choices
268. Under the rule of a principal or employer can be liable for the authorized or unauthorized intentional or
negligent torts of agents and employees who were acting within the scope of employment.
a. fiduciary duty
b. indemnification
c. agent respondeat
d. vicarious liability
e. none of the other choices
269. Under the rule of a principal or employer can be liable for the authorized or unauthorized intentional or
negligent torts of agents and employees who were acting within the scope of employment.
a. fiduciary duty
b. indemnification
c. agent respondeat
d. third-party rights, duties, and liabilities
e. none of the other choices
270. A factor courts may consider in determining whether an act was within the course and scope of employment under
vicarious liability is, was the:
a. act of the same general nature of those authorized by the principal
b. agent authorized to be in the location at the time the act occurred
c. agent serving or attempting to serve the principal’s interests at the time of the tort
d. act of the same general nature of those authorized by the principal and agent authorized to be in the location
at the time the act occurred
e. act of the same general nature of those authorized by the principal and agent authorized to be in the location
at the time the act occurred and agent serving or attempting to serve the principal’s interests at the time of
the tort
271. Which of the following is a factor that courts consider during a vicarious liability case when determining whether an
act was within the scope of employment:
a. whether the act was of the same general nature as those authorized by the principal.
b. whether the agent was authorized to be where he was at the time the act occurred
c. whether the agent was serving the principal’s interests at the time of the act
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
272. When liability is imposed on an employer for a tort committed by an employee, the liability is based on the rule of
law known as:
a. contractor liability
b. tortious liabilitius
c. respondeat superior
d. principal duty
e. there is no such rule as the employee only is responsible
273. The rule of law imposing vicarious liability upon an innocent principal is known as:
a. contractor liability
b. tortious liabilitius
c. respondeat superior
d. principal duty
e. there is no such rule as the employee only is responsible
274. The rule of law imposing vicarious liability upon an innocent principal is known as:
a. contractor liability
b. tortious liabilitius
c. there is no such rule as the employee only is responsible
d. principal duty
e. none of the other choices are correct
275. Employers may be liable for torts of employees that can be attributed to negligent hiring or supervision under the
rule of law known as:
a. contractor liability
b. tortious liabilitius
c. respondeat superior
d. principal duty
e. there is no such rule as the employee only is responsible
276. Employers may be liable for torts of employees that can be attributed to negligent hiring or supervision under the
rule of law known as:
a. contractor liability
b. tortious liabilitius
c. there is no such rule as the employee only is responsible
d. principal duty
e. none of the other choices are correct
277. Kurt works for Jeris. One evening Kurt decides to use the company truck to pick up his date. On his way home
from the movies, after dropping his date off, Kurt runs a red light and smashes into Bob. Is Jeris liable to Bob? a.
yes, because Kurt was her agent
b. yes, because Kurt was driving her truck
c. no, because Kurt was acting outside the scope of his employment
d. no, because Kurt was an independent contractor when not on the job
e. no, because Kurt’s actions negligent, not intentional
278. In Armstrong v. Food Lion, the Armstrongs were beaten by employees of a grocery store. They sued the store.
The South Carolina high court held that the store was:
a. liable on the theory of respondeat superior
b. liable under the rule of vicarious liability
c. liable based on negligent hiring of employees with criminal records
d. not liable because the assaults were outside of the employment duties
e. none of the other choices
279. In Armstrong v. Food Lion, the Armstrongs were beaten by employees of a grocery store. They sued the store.
The South Carolina high court held that the store was:
a. liable on the theory of respondeat superior
b. liable under the rule of vicarious liability
c. liable based on negligent hiring of employees with criminal records
d. liable in strict liability
e. none of the other choices
280. In Armstrong v. Food Lion, the Armstrongs were beaten by employees of a grocery store. They sued the store.
The South Carolina high court held that the store was not liable because:
a. the employees were not acting within the scope of their employment or in furtherance of Food Lion’s
business when they attacked the Armstrongs
b. the employees were acting within the scope of their employment or in furtherance of Food Lion’s business
when the attacked they Armstrongs
c. the employees had only worked for Food Lion for 6 months when they attacked the Armstrongs
d. the employees had worked for Food Lion for more than 6 months when they attacked the Armstrongs
e. the employees were not servants of Food Lion when they attacked the Armstrongs
281. In Armstrong v. Food Lion, the Armstrongs were beaten by employees of a grocery store. They sued the store.
The South Carolina high court held that the store was not liable because:
a. the employees were not servants of Food Lion when they attacked the Armstrongs
b. the employees were acting within the scope of their employment or in furtherance of Food Lion’s business
when the attacked they Armstrongs
c. the employees had only worked for Food Lion for 6 months when they attacked the Armstrongs
d. the employees had worked for Food Lion for more than 6 months when they attacked the Armstrongs
e. none of the other choices are correct
282. If a person could be expected to possibly cause problems and an employer hires them anyway, the employer could
be held liable for if the employee commits a tort against a customer.
a. negligence in hiring
b. irreverence in hiring
c. irresponsibility in hiring
d. lack of foresight in hiring
e. lack of care in hiring
283. If a person could be expected to possibly cause problems and an employer hires them anyway, the employer could
be held liable for if the employee commits a tort against a customer.
a. lack of care in hiring
b. irreverence in hiring
c. irresponsibility in hiring
d. lack of foresight in hiring
e. none of the other choices are correct
284. An employer could be held liable for negligence in hiring if:
a. they hire a person who could be expected to possibly cause problems
b. they hire a person who has no criminal record
c. they hire a person who owns property with liens on it
d. they hire a person who has never had a job before
e. they hire a person without a college degree
285. Karen has a history of drunk driving and has been convicted several times. The Pizza Parlor hires her as a delivery
person, despite knowing her history. If Karen causes an accident while on the job because she has been drinking
you would expect the courts to:
a. hold Karen liable, but not The Pizza Parlor since it was Karen’s decision to drink and drive
b. hold The Pizza Parlor liable for negligence in hiring
c. hold neither Karen nor The Pizza Parlor liable
d. hold The Pizza Parlor liable for negligence in hiring or not, depending on the state
e. none of the other choices are correct
286. Carter, who had been convicted of violent crimes, was hired as an independent contractor to sell vacuum cleaners
door–to–door. He assaulted a customer in her home who sued the vacuum cleaner company. You would expect the
Texas high court to hold that company:
a. was liable for negligence in hiring
b. was not liable because employers are not liable for acts of independent contractors
c. was not liable because Carter’s actions were in violation of his instructions
d. was not liable because it had no control over Carter’s actions when he was selling
e. none of the other choices
Fact Pattern 14–1
Emile owns Emile’s Used Car Emporium. Several people work for him at the Emporium. When Emile is gone, he
leaves one of his best salespersons, Meg, in charge. Over the years, Emile has given Meg the authority to contract
with vendors, negotiate sales, and conclude car sales contracts in his name.
One August, Emile takes a long vacation, leaving Meg in charge. While he is gone a hurricane hits Florida where
the Emporium is located, causing severe damage. Because Emile is floating down the Amazon, Meg cannot reach
him for instructions. She decides that rather than leave the place in shambles, she will hire people to repair the
Emporium.
Meg hires a carpenter to rebuild a wall that was blown down by the storm. Phil, the carpenter, is busy at work on
his scaffold when Meg‘s Scottish terrier Adam, who she keeps with her at work, plows into the scaffolding while
chasing a cat. Phil is knocked off the scaffold and falls ten feet to the ground, suffering a broken leg.
287. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. One day while Emile is out of the office, Josef, another sales person, enters into a
contract on Emile’s behalf with a local coffee vendor who stopped by to offer daily coffee service to the dealership.
Emile:
a. is bound by the contract if Josef was acting beyond his authority
b. is not bound by Josef’s actions
c. may be bound by the action if he ratifies the contract
d. is bound by the contract if Josef was acting beyond his authority and may be bound by the action if he
ratifies the contract
e. is not bound by Josef’s actions or may be bound by the action if he ratifies the contract
288. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. Meg is Emile’s agent. They appear to have created their agency relationship by:
a. a consensual agreement
b. application to the state government
c. executing a power of attorney
d. application of federal laws
e. transgressing the common law
289. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. Meg enters into a contract with the office supply vendor in Emile’s name. Because the
office supply vendor is a friend, Emile has always negotiated these contracts and he is angry with Meg when she
tells him that she signed the contract. In this case, Emile is:
a. not bound by Meg’s actions
b. bound by Meg’s actions by operation of law
c. bound by Meg‘s action apparent or actual authority
d. not bound by Meg’s actions because in this case there was no emergency to justify Meg’s behavior
e. bound by Meg’s action by rectification
290. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. When Meg acts to repair the Emporium after the hurricane, she is acting as an agent:
a. through operation of law
b. through estoppel
c. through ratification
d. pursuant to federal law
e. none of the other choices
291. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. Emile gives Sally authority to execute all normal transactions connected with his
business. In this case, Meg is:
a. a special agent
b. a gratuitous agent
c. a committed agent
d. a general agent
e. an interested agent
292. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. Suppose Meg, as part of her employment, pays Emile $100 per week so she may act as
the go-between for car customers and financing companies, so she can get commissions from the financing
companies. This kind of arrangement is known as:
a. a general agency
b. an agency coupled with an interest
c. a universal agency
d. a remunerative agency
e. a non-gratuitous agency
293. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. As Meg’s principal, Emile is required to:
a. cooperate with her
b. pay her for her services
c. indemnify her for any legal liabilities she incurs during the course of her work
d. reimburse her for reasonable expenses
e. do all of the other choices
294. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. As Emile’s agent, Meg is required to:
a. mingle her personal funds with his
b. engage in self-dealing
c. disregard orders given to her by Emile
d. engage in unethical behavior
e. exercise reasonable care in the performance of her duties
295. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. In the case of the carpenter, what relation is there to Emile?
a. Phil is Emile‘s universal agent
b. Phil is an independent contractor for Emile
c. Phil is a servant for Emile
d. none, Phil is Meg‘s special agent
e. Phil is Emile‘s special agent
296. Refer to Fact Pattern 14-1. Meg was negligent in allowing her dog to run wild at the Emporium, but Emile had
never objected to the dog being around. If Meg’s negligence is the cause of Phil‘s harms, then:
a. Meg is personally liable for compensating Phil; Emile could not be held liable
b. Phil may not collect from Meg or Emile because he assumed the risk of working for Emile
c. Emile is liable for compensating Phil under the doctrine of respondeat superior
d. Meg is personally liable for compensating Phil under the doctrine of vicarious liability
e. Emile is not liable for compensating Phil under the doctrine of non-indemnification