113. Express assumption of risk is when:
a. the parties agree beforehand that the defendant will relieve the plaintiff of his or her legal duty towards the
defendant
b. the parties agree beforehand that the plaintiff will do everything in his power to protect the defendant from
known risks
c. the parties agree beforehand that the defendant is only responsible for unknown risks
d. the parties agree beforehand that the plaintiff will relieve the defendant of his or her legal duty toward the
plaintiff
e. none of the other choices
114. Express assumption of risk is when:
a. the parties agree beforehand that the defendant will relieve the plaintiff of his or her legal duty towards the
defendant
b. the parties agree beforehand that the plaintiff will do everything in his power to protect the defendant from
known risks
c. the parties agree beforehand that the defendant is only responsible for unknown risks
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
115. Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses:
a. are against common law public policy
b. are not permitted by statute in most states
c. are allowed in many instances if clear to the party signing one
d. are allowed in a narrow range of instances when approved by the Restatement of Torts
e. none of the other choices
116. Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses:
a. are against common law public policy
b. are not permitted by statute in most states
c. are allowed in a narrow range of instances when approved by the Restatement of Torts
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
117. The doctrine of comparative negligence permits damages to be:
a. increased by the magnitude of defendants’ wrongdoing
b. increased by the amount of plaintiffs‘ goodwill
c. increased by the amount the judge thinks necessary
d. decreased by the percentage of defendants’ negligence
e. decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs’ injuries caused by plaintiff’s negligence
118. The doctrine of comparative negligence permits damages to be:
a. increased by the magnitude of defendants’ wrongdoing
b. increased by the amount of plaintiffs‘ goodwill
c. increased by the amount the judge thinks necessary
d. decreased by the percentage of defendants’ negligence
e. none of the other choices
119. The doctrine of
negligence.
a. substantial factor
b. proximate cause
permits damages to be decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs‘ injuries caused by plaintiff’s
c. intentional negligence
d. intervening conduct
e. comparative advantage
120. The doctrine of
negligence.
a. substantial factor
b. proximate cause
permits damages to be decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs‘ injuries caused by plaintiff’s
c. intentional negligence
d. intervening conduct
e. none of the other choices
121. If a jury finds there is comparative negligence in a tort case, which of the following happens:
a. damages are not allowed to be awarded
b. part of the injury is held to be the plaintiff’s fault
c. the defendant is relieved of any fault
d. the judge issues a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
e. none of the other choices
122. If a jury finds there is comparative negligence in a tort case, which of the following happens:
a. damages are not allowed to be awarded
b. part of the injury is held to be the defendant’s fault
c. the defendant is relieved of any fault
d. the judge issues a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
e. none of the other choices
123. Under the doctrine of
careless conduct.
a. intervening conduct
b. substantial factor
c. comparative negligence
d. proximate cause
e. cause in fact
, damages are reduced by the percentage of the injuries caused by a plaintiff’s own
124. In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room. As a result, the
jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. This action reflects which of the following legal doctrines?
a. contributory negligence
b. assumption of risk
c. comparative negligence
d. intervening conduct
e. none of the other choices
125. In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room when she
opened her door for a stranger. As a result, the jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. The
appeals court agreed, holding that:
a. she would recover nothing because was primarily responsible for what happened
b. she would recover nothing because the criminal, who was not caught, was the responsible party, not the hotel
owner
c. she would recover the entire verdict because the defendant was found partly responsible
d. she would recover the three percent under the comparative negligence rule
e. none of the other choices
126. Intentional torts:
a. are determined by state statute
b. are based on careless actions of defendants
c. concern the interference with personal or property rights
d. only concern actions that inflict harm on humans
e. none of the other choices
127. Intentional torts:
a. are determined by state statute
b. are based on careless actions of defendants
c. are determined by international statute
d. only concern actions that inflict harm on humans
e. none of the other choices
128. To establish the legal requirement of intent for an intentional tort:
a. the wrongdoer must have known what he was doing
b. the wrongdoer must have known that certain results could occur
c. the wrongdoer must have known the possible consequences of his act
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
129. There are several key elements needed to establish the legal requirements for there to be an intentional tort. Which
is not an element:
a. the wrongdoer knew what she was doing
b. the wrongdoer knew that certain results could occur
c. the wrongdoer knew possible consequences of his act
d. the wrongdoer knew who would suffer the injury
e. all of the other choices are necessary elements
130. To be liable for an intentional tort, the defendant must have:
a. acted voluntarily
b. acted unknowingly
c. acted quickly
d. acted in an informed manner
e. acted as a reasonable person would under the same circumstances
131. To be liable for an intentional tort, the defendant must have:
a. acted as a reasonable person would under the same circumstances
b. acted unknowingly
c. acted quickly
d. acted in an informed manner as to the consequences
e. none of the other choices
132. Intentional torts are based on:
a. negligence
b. carelessness
c. willful misconduct
d. assumption of care
e. obsequiousness
133. Intentional torts are based on:
a. negligence
b. carelessness
c. obsequiousness
d. assumption of care
e. none of the other choices
134. To be liable for an intentional tort the defendant must have:
a. thought through the consequences of his action
b. “considered” the consequences of his actions
c. been unaware of the consequences of his actions
d. engaged in a voluntary action
e. none of the other choices
135. To be liable for a tort the defendant must have:
a. thought through the consequences of his action
b. “carefully considered” the consequences of his actions
c. been unaware of the consequences of his actions
d. must have prevented intervening conduct
e. none of the other choices
136. If a defendant in an intentional tort action did not intend to cause harm:
a. he could still be liable because motive is legally distinct from act and intent
b. he could still be liable because he was careless
c. he cannot be held liable because his motive was not to harm the plaintiff
d. he cannot be held liable because he did not know who would be harmed by his actions
e. none of the other choices
137. In an intentional tort action, motive is the act.
a. legally indistinct from
b. legally distinct from
c. indistinguishable from
d. a key component of
e. none of the other choices
138. Intentional conduct that places a person in fear of immediate bodily harm or offensive contact is the tort of:
a. battery
b. assault
c. defamation
d. duress
e. false imprisonment
139. Intentional conduct that places a person in fear of immediate bodily harm or offensive contact is the tort of:
a. battery
b. false imprisonment
c. defamation
d. duress
e. none of the other choices
140. If a person intends to act to cause a harmful or offensive contact, he is liable for the tort of:
a. assault
b. battery
c. defamation
d. duress
e. false imprisonment
141. If a person intends to act to cause a harmful or offensive contact, he is liable for the tort of:
a. assault
b. false imprisonment
c. defamation
d. duress
e. none of the other choices
142. The intentional tort of assault requires that:
a. there be physical contact with the body
b. the injured party have knowledge of the danger
c. the injured party be detained against his or her will
d. the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff
e. all of the other choices
143. The intentional tort of assault requires that:
a. there be physical contact with the body
b. the injured party suffer a “noticeable” physical injury
c. the injured party be detained against his or her will
d. the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff
e. none of the other choices
144. The tort of assault is:
a. an unlawful and offensive touching
b. intentional conduct by a person that is so outrageous that it creates severe mental or emotional distress in
another
c. intentional conduct directed at a person that places the person in fear of immediate bodily harm
d. intentional holding or detaining of a person within boundaries that harms the person‘s liberty rights
e. none of the other choices are correct
145. The tort of assault is:
a. an unlawful and offensive touching
b. intentional conduct by a person that is so outrageous that it creates severe mental or emotional distress in
another
c. intentional conduct that results in bodily injury, whether intended or not
d. intentional holding or detaining of a person within boundaries that harms the person‘s liberty rights
e. none of the other choices are correct
146. The fear of immediate bodily harm that occurs for there to be an assault is fear:
a. that would be suffered by a reasonable person under the circumstances
b. that was suffered by the plaintiff, as demonstrated by the plaintiff‘s proof, given the plaintiff’s mental
condition at the time of the event
c. that the plaintiff alleges to have suffered, regardless of the circumstances
d. that any “sensitive person” would have suffered under similar circumstances
e. that the judge instructs the jury has occurred or not, under the circumstances
147. The fear of immediate bodily harm that occurs for there to be an assault is fear:
a. that was suffered by the plaintiff, as demonstrated by the plaintiff’s proof, given the plaintiff’s mental
condition at the time of the event
b. that the plaintiff alleges to have suffered, regardless of the circumstances
c. that any “sensitive person” would have suffered under similar circumstances
d. that the judge instructs the jury has occurred or not, under the circumstances
e. none of the other choices
148. There is no assault if:
a. there is no mental harm
b. there is no physical harm
c. there is no fear of harm
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
149. There is no assault if:
a. there is no mental harm
b. there is no physical harm
c. there is a fear of harm, but no physical harm
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
150. Which of the following is most likely to be an example of an assault?
a. someone bumps into you while walking down the street
b. someone holds a gun at your head while threatening you
c. someone beats you up in a fist fight
d. someone points a gun at you while you are sleeping
e. someone wiretaps your phone
151. Which of the following is most likely to be an example of an assault?
a. someone bumps into you while walking down the street
b. someone beats you up in a fist fight
c. someone points a gun at you while you are sleeping
d. someone wiretaps your phone
e. none of the other choices
152. Intentional physical contact without consent may constitute:
a. battery
b. assault
c. defamation
d. duress
e. false imprisonment
153. Intentional physical contact without consent may constitute the tort of:
a. negligence
b. misrepresentation
c. defamation
d. duress
e. none of the other choices
154. While you are sound asleep, your roommate hits you in the head with a brick. This is most likely to be the tort of:
a. assault
b. battery
c. negligence
d. malicious prosecution
e. privilege
155. While you are sound asleep, your roommate hits you in the head with a brick. This is most likely to be the tort of:
a. fraud
b. negligence
c. false imprisonment
d. malicious prosecution
e. none of the other choices
156. Contact that does not cause actual physical harm, but offends a reasonable person‘s sense of dignity could be a tort
of:
a. negligence
b. fraud
c. malicious prosecution
d. battery
e. assault
157. Contact that does not cause actual physical harm, but offends a reasonable person’s sense of dignity is most likely a
tort of:
a. negligence
b. fraud
c. malicious prosecution
d. duress
e. none of the other choices
158. In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was “arrested” by the police as a prank at work, the
appeals court held that there:
a. could be a tort of assault and battery by the police
b. could be a tort of assault and battery by the workers who arranged the “arrest”
c. could be no tort because no malice was involved
d. could be no tort because a reasonable person would not act like Fuerschbach did
e. none of the other choices
159. In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was “arrested” by the police as a prank at work, the
appeals court held that there:
a. could be a tort of misrepresentation as the police were not really making an arrest
b. could be a tort of assault and battery by the workers who arranged the “arrest”
c. could be no tort because no malice was involved
d. could be no tort because a reasonable person would not act like Fuerschbach did
e. none of the other choices
160. In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was “arrested” by the police as a prank at work, the
appeals court held that there could be a tort of assault and battery by the police because:
a. the officers did not intend to cause an offensive contact, but ultimately did cause an offensive contact
b. the officers intended to cause an offensive contact, but did not actually cause an offensive contact
c. the officers intended to cause an offensive contact and did cause an offensive contact
d. the officers did not intend to cause an offensive contact and did not cause an offensive contact
e. none of the other choices
161. In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was “arrested” by the police as a prank at work, the
appeals court held that there could be a tort of assault and battery by the police because:
a. the officers did not intend to cause an offensive contact, but ultimately did cause an offensive contact
b. the officers intended to cause an offensive contact, but did not actually cause an offensive contact
c. the officers’ conduct was not that of reasonable persons in the given situation
d. the officers did not intend to cause an offensive contact and did not cause an offensive contact
e. none of the other choices
162. The principal distinction between assault and battery is:
a. the difference between the plaintiff knowing the defendant and not knowing the defendant
b. the difference between the requirements of apprehension of an offensive physical contact and of actual
physical contact
c. the difference between the requirements of proximate cause and ultimate cause
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
163. The principal distinction between assault and battery is:
a. the difference between the plaintiff knowing the defendant and not knowing the defendant
b. the difference between the defendant intending to cause harm and not intending to cause harm
c. the difference between the requirements of proximate cause and ultimate cause
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other specific choices
164. The major defense(s) in assault and battery cases is (are):
a. privilege
b. cause-in–fact
c. consent
d. privilege and consent
e. privilege, consent and cause-in-fact
165. Consent, privilege, self-defense and defense of others and of property are all:
a. defenses in assault and battery cases
b. defenses in negligence tort cases
c. not permissible defenses in assault and battery cases
d. examples of proximate causes
e. none of the other choices
166. Consent, privilege, self-defense and defense of others and of property are all:
a. examples of proximate causes
b. major defenses in negligence tort cases
c. examples of substantial factors
d. not permissible defenses in assault and battery cases
e. none of the other choices
167. In an assault or battery tort case, consent is when:
a. the injured party intentionally placed himself in danger
b. the injured party gave permission to the alleged wrongdoer to interfere with a personal right
c. the injured party did not give permission to the alleged wrongdoer to interfere with a personal right
d. the alleged wrongdoer warned the injured party of the possibility of harm
e. none of the other choices
168. In an assault or battery tort case, consent:
a. can be either expressed or implied by words or conduct
b. must be expressed with words
c. must be expressed in writing
d. must be expressed by all involved parties
e. none of the other choices
169. In an assault or battery tort case, consent:
a. must be witnessed by at least one witness of legal age
b. must be expressed with words
c. must be expressed in writing
d. must be expressed by all involved parties
e. none of the other choices