Question 1

The owner of a store sees someone reaching in to steal cash from a cash register while no one is near it. The store owner shoots the thief. The thief sues in tort for the injuries intentionally inflicted on him. The owner has a defense that protects him from liability.

Accepted Answer

The use of deadly force in defense of property is generally not justified under tort law, unless the owner reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent the commission of a violent felony. In this scenario, the thief was only attempting to steal cash, and therefore the store owner would not have a defense that protects him from liability.

Question 2

For the tort of false imprisonment there must be physical restraint of the victim.

Accepted Answer

False imprisonment can occur through physical restraint, but it can also occur through other means, such as threats or the use of authority. It is the deprivation of a person's liberty or freedom of movement without lawful justification.

Question 3

If you are waving a gun at someone to scare them, and it accidentally goes off and hits the person, you are likely liable for battery.

Accepted Answer

Battery involves intentionally touching or harming someone without their consent. Waving a gun at someone can be considered an intentional act, and if it accidentally goes off and harms the person, it can still be considered battery. Therefore, the person waving the gun can be held liable for the harm caused.

Question 4

In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was "arrested" at work as part of a prank, the appeals court held that if Fuerschbach's "personal dignity" was offended, then the tort of battery may have occurred.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects the holding of the appeals court in Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines.

Question 5

Infliction of emotional distress is involuntary conduct by a person that causes an outrageous effect on another.

Accepted Answer

Infliction of emotional distress is typically considered intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to another person.

Question 6

In Lawler v. Montblanc North America, where Lawler was fired soon after telling her supervisor that for medical reasons she could not work more than 20 hours per week, the appeals court held she had no case for emotional distress as there was no outrageous conduct involved.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects the holding in Lawler v. Montblanc North America. The appeals court concluded that Lawler's supervisor's conduct, while perhaps insensitive, did not rise to the level of outrageous conduct required to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Question 7

The only defense to battery is privilege.

Accepted Answer

The defense to battery can also include self-defense or defense of others, consent, or accidental touching without intent. Privilege is not the only defense to battery.

Question 8

Because theft is such a large problem most state legislatures allow stores to hold anyone for suspected shoplifting without threat of tort suit.

Accepted Answer

Most state legislatures have enacted statutes that allow stores to detain suspected shoplifters for a reasonable period for investigation, but these statutes typically require that the detention be conducted in a reasonable manner to avoid liability for false imprisonment or other torts.

Question 9

In Lawler v. Montblanc North America, where Lawler was fired soon after telling her supervisor that for medical reasons she could not work more than 20 hours per week, the appeals court held she could sue the employer for mental distress because her expert witness testified that she was emotionally fragile and was "nearly destroyed" by the action.

Accepted Answer

In Lawler v. Montblanc North America, the court held that Lawler could not sue for emotional distress damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the ADA does not permit compensatory damages for emotional distress.

Question 10

A group of workers applied for work at a company looking to hire workers. They were locked in an enclosure and the police were called to report that they were trespassing. The workers could not sue for false imprisonment because the property owner was defending company property.

Accepted Answer

The workers may have grounds to sue for false imprisonment if they can prove that they were restrained against their will without legal justification. The fact that the property owner was defending company property does not necessarily absolve them of liability.

Question 11

A robber holds up a store with a gun. The store owner shoots the robber in the leg. The robber sues in tort for the injuries intentionally inflicted on him. The owner has a defense that protects him from liability.

Accepted Answer

The store owner can claim self-defense as a legal defense to protect himself from liability for the injuries intentionally inflicted on the robber, as he was protecting himself and his property from an immediate threat.

Question 12

In most courts the tort of emotional distress requires evidence of physical injury to the victim.

Accepted Answer

In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff can recover for emotional distress without showing physical injury. This is known as the "impact rule." However, other jurisdictions may require physical injury or some other type of accompanying physical symptoms to establish a claim for emotional distress. It varies by jurisdiction and the specific facts of each case.

Question 13

To badger someone late at night with many threatening phone calls could lead to the tort of emotional distress.

Accepted Answer

Intentionally causing emotional distress through harassment and threatening behavior can be considered a form of tort, which is a civil wrong that results in legal liability.

Question 14

In,Lawler v. Montblanc North America, where Lawler was fired soon after telling her supervisor that for medical reasons she could not work more than 20 hours per week the appeals court held she could sue the employer for mental distress.

Accepted Answer

In Lawler v. Montblanc North America, the appeals court held that Lawler could not sue the employer for mental distress because her claim was preempted by the California Workers' Compensation Act, which provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, including psychological injuries.

Question 15

A group of workers applied for work at a company looking to hire workers. They were locked in an enclosure and the police were called to report trespassing. The workers could sue for false imprisonment as they had good reason to be on company property.

Accepted Answer

The workers had a legitimate reason to be on the company property, so locking them in an enclosure and calling the police to report trespassing would amount to false imprisonment.

Question 16

When an assault occurs, a battery also occurs.

Accepted Answer

Assault and battery are related but distinct crimes. Assault is the act of threatening or attempting to harm someone, creating a fear of imminent harm, while battery involves actual physical contact or harm. It's possible to commit an assault without a battery if no physical contact occurs.

Question 17

You see a house on fire and break down the door to see if anyone needs to be rescued. If the owner of the house sues you for the value of the door, you have a defense called privilege.

Accepted Answer

The defense of privilege allows a person to take reasonable actions to prevent harm or protect others without being liable for any resulting damage. In this case, breaking down the door to potentially save someone from a burning house would likely be considered a reasonable action to prevent harm, and thus the defense of privilege would apply.

Question 18

If you get into a fight and suffer injuries, the person who fought with you probably must pay for your injuries because it is battery.

Accepted Answer

The obligation to pay for injuries depends on the circumstances of the fight, such as self-defense or mutual consent, and legal determination of liability.

Question 19

You are the goalie of a college ice hockey team. If your jaw is broken by an opponent who accidentally hits your face with his stick you probably have a good suit for battery.

Accepted Answer

Since the opponent's actions were accidental, there is no intention or recklessness that would justify a claim of battery. Accidents can happen in contact sports like ice hockey, and players assume some level of risk when they step onto the ice. However, if the opponent was acting with deliberate disregard for your safety (such as swinging his stick at your face on purpose), that could potentially be considered battery.

Question 20

In general, if store personnel believe someone may have shoplifted, they have the right to detain the person for a short while and not be liable for false imprisonment.

Accepted Answer

Store personnel have a limited right to detain someone they reasonably believe shoplifted in order to conduct an investigation or contact law enforcement. This is known as a "shopkeeper's privilege" and is not considered false imprisonment as long as the detention is reasonable in duration and manner. However, store personnel can still be liable if they detain someone without reasonable suspicion or use excessive force.

Quiz 6: Elements of Torts